M
MartinJordan
Guest
I wonder how many people have been misunderstanding the Catholic Eucharistic celebration?
MJ
- Status
MJ
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Yes God has a distinct role and purpose for everyone He saves, but that’s not what I was saying. In Mark 16:17 Jesus says that every believer is able to: “cast out devils, speak in new tongues, take up serpents(figuratively), drink any deadly thing, lay hands on the sick and see them recover”.
No matter what role one is in, any believer shall have the potential to do these things because the same spirit lives in all.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Here is what I see going on.
Catholics see their CHURCH as having the blessing of perserverance or infallibility.
But what I see in the bible is many churches that tended toward false doctrine even though they were true churches, that is, they were all founded by apostles. Ephesians had the worship of angels. Galatians were “Foolish”. Pergamos had those that held the doctrine of Balaam. Thyatira tolerated a Jezebel. Even true churches don’t have a guarantee. What seems important in the scripture is how each individual applies himself to the word of truth.
Example: Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments". (Rev 3:4)
Next, I see that that the promise to persevere is mainly to individuals.
" Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy". Jude 24
"Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time"1Pet1:5.
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? …Rm8:35
“No man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand” Jn10:29
“Wherefore brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fail” 2Pt 1:10
So in scripture, its more about how well the individual applies himself rather than what church he belongs to. How strong is my own relationship with Christ? That’s the only guarantee if there is one.
Let me tell you about a revelation I got from John Bevere. He said God showed him why Lucifer fell. Well, the sin was “pride” as we know, but how could an angel fall into sin? What was his problem? It was something that was deficient in him. What he lacked was “Fear of the Lord”. But if we have “Fear of the Lord” we will “endure for ever”, according to Ps. 19:9. That is a guarantee. What is"fear of the Lord you ask? It is hating what God hates and loving what God loves.
So all of s these things about church authority are really not a concern for me if it is not important in scripture. I think that’s why Mark and Luke do not even mention the part about Peter and the rock and the binding and losing because it was meant for Peter only and thus not important for us.
R
Ron_Obvious
Guest
Ahh, but it is importatnt in scripture. Paul tells us the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth ( 1 Tim 3:15). Matthew says “tell it to the Church” (Mattthew 18:17). Which church, eaxyduzit? Jesus clearly gave His church real authority when he said, “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven” (John 20:23); “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18); “He who hears you, hears me.” (Luke 10:16). That authority was not given to everyone, but started with the twelve, and has been passed on through the Church.
**BTW, you never really answered my question. Does your authority to accurately and authoritatively interpret scripture supercede the Catholic Church’s authority to accurately and authoritatively interpret scripture? I’d really like your answer to that question. **
E
Erich
Guest
eazyduzit;12744403But what I see in the bible is many churches that tended toward false doctrine even though they were true churches said:
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Sorry, It was not my intention to say that the apostles taught differing doctrines. Certainly they didn’t, but what I pointed to is that there were errors in doctrine in many NT churches.
My question is : Were they true churches? Paul had to constantly make corrections and point out errors and sins. The Bible is full of warnings for us. From Mt. 24-“Many false prophets shall arrise and deceive many”. 1Tm4:1"In the latter times…" Acts 20:29,30, Peter warned in his 2nd letter, “there shall be false teachers among you”. No where does anyone add that oh BTW don’t worry, you will always have an infallible one to keep you safe. But rather the Bible says “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” , with the condition that you “continue in My word” and again “My sheep hear my voice and another they will not follow” .
I am very tired of the claim that Protestants have many different doctrines. They don’t. There is remarkable uniformly among those who believe that the Bible is the word of GOD in its entirety, not that it contains the word.
The problem with Rome is that all these Marion doctrines, Purgatory, baptismal regeneration, etc. have no foundation in scripture but are based on tradition.
R
Ron_Obvious
Guest
No where does anyone add that oh BTW don’t worry, you will always have an infallible one to keep you safe.
Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) and promised to send the spirit to guide His Church to all truth. (John 16:13)
I am very tired of the claim that Protestants have many different doctrines. They don’t. There is remarkable uniformly among those who believe that the Bible is the word of GOD in its entirety, not that it contains the word.
Sorry eazy, but its a fact. Protestans disagree on a wide range of issues: Baptism, once saved always saved, the eucharist…I could go on.
The problem with Rome is that all these Marion doctrines, Purgatory, baptismal regeneration, etc. have no foundation in scripture but are based on tradition.
**This is not a problem for the Catholic Church, but a problem for eazyduzit. Not one Catholic dogma contradicts scripture. Your taking the authority to authentically interpret scriptures from the Church and giving it to eazyduzit is the problem. The title of this thread is “Whats your authority?” We can debate baptism, purgatory, Mary, and the priesthood all day, but it comes down to authority. And the authority to interpret scripture rests with the Catholic Church, not eazyduzit. And you STILL didn’t answer my question.
Eazyduzit, does your authority to authentically interpret scripture supercede the Catholic Church’s authority, yes or no?**
Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) and promised to send the spirit to guide His Church to all truth. (John 16:13)
I am very tired of the claim that Protestants have many different doctrines. They don’t. There is remarkable uniformly among those who believe that the Bible is the word of GOD in its entirety, not that it contains the word.
Sorry eazy, but its a fact. Protestans disagree on a wide range of issues: Baptism, once saved always saved, the eucharist…I could go on.
The problem with Rome is that all these Marion doctrines, Purgatory, baptismal regeneration, etc. have no foundation in scripture but are based on tradition.
**This is not a problem for the Catholic Church, but a problem for eazyduzit. Not one Catholic dogma contradicts scripture. Your taking the authority to authentically interpret scriptures from the Church and giving it to eazyduzit is the problem. The title of this thread is “Whats your authority?” We can debate baptism, purgatory, Mary, and the priesthood all day, but it comes down to authority. And the authority to interpret scripture rests with the Catholic Church, not eazyduzit. And you STILL didn’t answer my question.
Eazyduzit, does your authority to authentically interpret scripture supercede the Catholic Church’s authority, yes or no?**
C
Chong
Guest
I like your view!
R
rinnie
Guest
I don’t think Rome is the problem, I believe it is your understanding of the teaching of the Roman Church.
And your understanding of Tradition. What is the difference if the Apostles taught something by saying it to us, or writing it down and letting us read what God said?
P
ptisme
Guest
Actually the Hebrew Canon was defined around 90 AD. We don’t base our canon what the Pharisees’ (the people who crucified Jesus) saw fit as inspired.
E
Erich
Guest
Oh, really?
Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.
Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.
For example, for non-Lutherans, a good test would be: Could Martin Luther pastor your church, given his beliefs in things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, high predestination, and the Real Presence? The problem is much more general than Luther, however. Pastors from one Protestant tradition typically are not allowed to serve as pastors in Protestant churches of other traditions. A Lutheran’s belief in baptismal regeneration will prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist’s belief in high predestination will prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist’s belief in infant baptism will prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, and so on.
Either Baptism is a sacrament or it isn’t. Either Baptism is essential for salvation or it isn’t. Either Baptism washes away original sin or it doesn’t. And we haven’t even gotten to whether Baptism should be by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling – or whether Baptism should be “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” or (say) “in the Name of the Creator and of the Redeemer and of the Sanctifier.”
If you leave Baptism (and Real Presence and …) off the list of essential beliefs because folks can’t agree (i.e. “clearly it’s not ‘essential’ for some, so it must not be essential”), then the list of essential beliefs will be a short one indeed. I’d venture to guess that a list constructed (actually, de-constructed) in this manner will be empty.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Rome selected whatever lined up with its own doctrine. 4Esdras was left out because of a verse that seems to deny Purgatory.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Maybe nothing, but we must be very careful about what is scripture and what is not. Paul could be inspired to preach or write but it is not necessarily scripture unless it is Rhema or God-breathed. We have what is probably Paul’s 3rd letter to Corinthians, but it is not holy scripture.
St. Paul was very insistent with the Galations that they accept nothing else that differed in any way from the message he originally delivered, even if it came from his own mouth or an angel.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
From my perspective its not so much about authority as RELATIONSHIP. If I abide in Christ, then I will endure. A community or church will help me but it is up to me to grow in faith and to be diligent in prayer and worship. It takes more than authority to really know Jesus and His word. The Bible is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to help us to know and experience Jesus. We should not make the Bible an idol. (I might also add that Catholics should not make their Tradition an idol, but that is not my place.) Interpretation comes by degrees and gradually we see more. Daniel said that in the last times, “knowledge will increase”. Also, Revelation will increase. In 2Cor. Ch.2 is the familiar verse, “eye hath not seen nor ear heard”, but then in the next verse it says, “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit”. Now , a baptist would scoff at this, but here are some examples of revelation I have heard that you will not find in any commentary. Remember in Exodus 33 where Moses is up in the mount of God and he asks to see His Glory? According to scripture he is shown God’s “backside” or “the train of His glory”, but what exactly did he see? There is no further clue in the Bible. What he saw was all of history paraded before him, from creation, Adam and Eve, the flood, the Patriarchs all passing before his eyes. That is how he knew all the things to write in Genesis. In Rev. 2:17 a “white stone with a new name written on it which no man knoweth saveth he that recieveth”. Here is a revelation that is not found in any commentary. In heaven, the Lord will give to his servants a white stone with a special name written on it that only He and the receiver will know. It is a personal “pet” name that will express something about you, just as Simon was renamed “Peter”.
Malachi Martin was considered to be very prophetic and much of what he said proved true. Have you read “Windswept House” or any of his books? They present a very challenging future for Rome . The books are presented as fiction only because what he had to say was so controversial, but there were many interviews in which he spoke plainly, that are on YouTube.
Then there is thing developing with the search for aliens. Do you know about The Vatican’s “Lucifer Project” and the plans to welcome aliens?
I’m sure you know about Fatima and the “Miracle of the Sun”. But what the actual written eyewitness accounts describe is a large silver gray disc that floated in the air. Today we would say a “flying saucer”. Something is going on.
I am going to stay with the Bible and ask God for wisdom.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And non-Catholic Christians have accepted it as inspired scripture because of that very denial???
Relax. I know it is not part of the OT.
However, I think what you actually meant to say is that the Early Christian Church (which called itself the Catholic Church, btw), accepted those scriptures which were recognized as inspired while rejecting those which were not.
So, yeah…if a book or letter taught a doctrine which did not line up with what the Apostles had taught, it was rejected as scripture.
What else would we expect?
And if the early Church rejected 4 Esdras because it denies Purgatory, what does that tell you about the belief of that Church concerning that doctrine?
P
ptisme
Guest
You’re so darned good at this:thumbsup:And non-Catholic Christians have accepted it as inspired scripture because of that very denial???
Relax. I know it is not part of the OT.
However, I think what you actually meant to say is that the Early Christian Church (which called itself the Catholic Church, btw), accepted those scriptures which were recognized as inspired while rejecting those which were not.
So, yeah…if a book or letter taught a doctrine which did not line up with what the Apostles had taught, it was rejected as scripture.
What else would we expect?
And if the early Church rejected 4 Esdras because it denies Purgatory, what does that tell you about the belief of that Church concerning that doctrine?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
R
Ron_Obvious
Guest
From my perspective its not so much about authority as RELATIONSHIP.
Relationship is very important and I am not trying to discount that. However, there are differences among Christians, and those differences cannot be swept under the rug. Jesus prayed that “they all be one.” (John 17:21) The idea that different communities teaching contradictory things is ok goes against what Jesus prayed for. Jesus established a Church, the Catholic Church. History backs this up, no matter how hard some try to revise it. Jesus gave His Church real authority, as I’ve shown you from scripture in previous posts. Sidestepping the issue of authority, which you are clearly doing in your failure to answer my question, won’t help you.
(I might also add that Catholics should not make their Tradition an idol, but that is not my place.) Interpretation comes by degrees and gradually we see more.
Catholics don’t, “make their Tradition their idol.” That claim is baseless.
I am going to stay with the Bible and ask God for wisdom.
And may His infinite wisdom lead you into full communion with the Church.
Relationship is very important and I am not trying to discount that. However, there are differences among Christians, and those differences cannot be swept under the rug. Jesus prayed that “they all be one.” (John 17:21) The idea that different communities teaching contradictory things is ok goes against what Jesus prayed for. Jesus established a Church, the Catholic Church. History backs this up, no matter how hard some try to revise it. Jesus gave His Church real authority, as I’ve shown you from scripture in previous posts. Sidestepping the issue of authority, which you are clearly doing in your failure to answer my question, won’t help you.
(I might also add that Catholics should not make their Tradition an idol, but that is not my place.) Interpretation comes by degrees and gradually we see more.
Catholics don’t, “make their Tradition their idol.” That claim is baseless.
I am going to stay with the Bible and ask God for wisdom.
And may His infinite wisdom lead you into full communion with the Church.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
what that tells me is that church that invented Purgatory got off track somewhere just as several other churches in the NT.And non-Catholic Christians have accepted it as inspired scripture because of that very denial???
Relax. I know it is not part of the OT.
However, I think what you actually meant to say is that the Early Christian Church (which called itself the Catholic Church, btw), accepted those scriptures which were recognized as inspired while rejecting those which were not.
So, yeah…if a book or letter taught a doctrine which did not line up with what the Apostles had taught, it was rejected as scripture.
What else would we expect?
And if the early Church rejected 4 Esdras because it denies Purgatory, what does that tell you about the belief of that Church concerning that doctrine?
R
Ron_Obvious
Guest
The Church that invented Purgatory? Really? Sorry eazyduzit, the idea of Purgatory has been part of Judeo-Christian tradition since before Christ. It is revealed in the Old Testament (2 Mc 12:41-46) as well as other Pre-Christian Jewish works. Orthodox Jews still believe in a form of Purgation. The fact that the Early Church fathers allude to it shows it has been part of Christian belief from the beginning. Jews, Catholics, and EO all believe in a form of purgation, though it may be articulated differently.
Just because you don’t see Purgatory in scripture because you happen to be reading it through the lenses of your Pentectostal tradition, doesn’t make it false. And you are still sidestepping the issue of authority, which is what this all comes down to.
- Status